Latest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- SHAUKAT ALI AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2203 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI Alias PAPOO vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 289 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-17Read full judgment →
- SHARIF HUSSAIN AND Others vs HAV. PIR BAKHSH AND Other1983 SCMR 857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order remanding a rent dispute to the District Judge. The core dispute involved an ejectment application where the petitioners contested the Rent Controller's jurisdiction, arguing that a title dispute existed between the parties regarding the transfer of the property. The Rent Controller had initially ordered eviction, but the District Judge reversed this, ruling that the Rent Controller lacked competence to determine title. The High Court subsequently remanded the matter, holding that the Rent Controller possesses the jurisdiction to determine the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship as a foundational fact for exercising its authority. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that a statutory tribunal of limited jurisdiction is inherently empowered to decide the preliminary facts necessary to establish its own jurisdiction. The Court held that such findings are subject to appellate review, and since the case was remanded for a fresh decision on merits, the petitioners would have full opportunity to present their case before the District Judge.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to determine the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship?
- Can a statutory tribunal of limited jurisdiction decide the foundational facts required to exercise its own jurisdiction?
- Is a Rent Controller competent to determine title disputes in the context of an ejectment application?
- SHARAFAT HUSS AIN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KASUR AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 1485 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
- SHAN MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALNAGAR AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 482 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-04Read full judgment →
- SHAMUS GUL AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 PLD Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
- SHAMSUDDIN vs Mst. NAZIRAN AND 2 Other1983 SCMR 1118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of the High Court to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with an ejectment order passed against the petitioner by the Rent Controller and upheld by the appellate authority. The core legal questions involve the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, the requirement of statutory notices under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, and the effect of non-payment of rent. The Supreme Court held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was duly established, and although the absence of notice under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance initially excused the tenant regarding default, his continued failure to tender or deposit rent after the appellate authority's decision constituted a forfeiture of his right of tenancy. The Court laid down the principle that a tenant who withholds rent despite an adverse finding on the relationship of landlord and tenant forfeits equitable relief and discretionary constitutional remedies.
Questions settled- Does a tenant forfeit the right of tenancy by failing to tender or deposit rent after an appellate authority affirms the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Whether the High Court can properly refuse discretionary constitutional relief to a tenant who withholds rent despite adverse findings?
- Does an offer to deposit arrears of rent before the Supreme Court cure a prior default established during lower proceedings?
- SHAMSHUR REHMAN AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2293 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-05Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHOO vs Mst. TAHIRA AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 133 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an appellate judgment dissolving a marriage on the ground of Khula. The petitioner (husband) argued that the wife’s suit was barred by res judicata due to a previous dismissal for non-prosecution and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. He further contended that the failure to prove specific grounds like cruelty or impotency precluded a decree for Khula, and that Khula could not be granted upon mere request. The High Court held that the principle of res judicata does not apply to a subsequent suit for dissolution of marriage when new and additional grounds, such as Khula, are raised. Furthermore, the failure to prove specific allegations does not bar a court from granting Khula if the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The Court affirmed that in its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, it cannot act as an appellate court to re-examine evidence, provided the subordinate forum acted within its lawful authority. The petition was dismissed, upholding the dissolution of marriage.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal of a previous suit for dissolution of marriage for non-prosecution operate as res judicata against a subsequent suit for dissolution on the ground of Khula?
- Can a decree for restitution of conjugal rights bar a wife from filing a subsequent suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula?
- Does the failure to prove specific grounds like cruelty or impotency preclude a court from granting dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula?
- To what extent can the High Court interfere with a subordinate court's decision in a family matter under its constitutional jurisdiction?
- SHAMSHER vs Syed AHSAN ALI1983 CLC 308 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an order of the first appellate authority under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which reversed the Rent Controller's dismissal of an ejectment application and ordered the appellant's eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of proof regarding the tender and refusal of rent via money orders and the validity of establishing a landlord's personal requirement while occupying rented premises. The Sindh High Court held that the first appellate authority was justified in reversing the Rent Controller's finding on default, as the mere production of money order coupons without postal endorsement of refusal or supporting testimony from the postman did not discharge the tenant's burden of proof after the landlord denied receipt on oath. Furthermore, the Court held that a landlord seeking eviction for personal use is not required to produce his own landlord in evidence, and the sufficiency of his current accommodation must be judged with reference to property owned by him rather than rented premises. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether mere production of money order coupons is sufficient to prove tender and refusal of rent in the absence of postal endorsements and testimony from the concerned postman?
- Is a landlord seeking eviction on the ground of personal requirement legally required to produce his own landlord in evidence to prove threat of eviction from his current premises?
- Should the sufficiency of accommodation in the occupation of a landlord be judged with reference to his own property or rented premises?
- Can the High Court interfere in second appeal with findings of fact by the first appellate authority that are supported by evidence on record?
- SHAMSHER ALI AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 959 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHAD KHAN vs EASTERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY1983 PLC 683 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-29Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHAD HUSSAIN BUTT vs THE STATE- Respondent1983 P Cr: L J 1985 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHAD ALI QURESHI vs SHAHZAD MIAN1983 CLC 2106 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-16Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHAD AHMAD vs SENIOR MEMBER (ESTABLISHMENT),1983 PLC (C. S.) 374 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
- SHAMROZ AND Another vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR AND Other1983 SCMR 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition challenging the ejectment of tenants. The petitioners, who were tenants, were ejected by the Assistant Collector for non-payment of lease money regarding Rabi and Kharif crops for the year 1979. After exhausting their remedies through appeals to the Collector, the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), and the Member, Board of Revenue, the petitioners sought relief in the High Court, which was denied. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that they had attempted to pay the lease money to the respondent prior to the ejectment proceedings and had subsequently deposited the amount with the trial court. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the lower courts, which consistently held that the petitioners had defaulted on their payment obligations. The Court affirmed that a subsequent deposit of the lease money does not condone the initial default. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as being without merit.
Questions settled- Does the subsequent deposit of lease money with a trial court condone a prior default in payment by a tenant?
- Can a tenant avoid ejectment proceedings by depositing arrears after the default has already occurred?
- SHAMASUDD1N vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 47 OTHERS1983 CLC 1965 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
- SHAKOOR ULLAH KHAN vs PAKISTAI4 RAILWAYS THROUGH DIVISIONAL1983 PLC 1140 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MOHABAT AND 2 OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 572 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
- SHAKOOR MUHAMMAD AND Another vs The STATE1983 SCMR 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal under Article 185 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner for Northern Areas at Gilgit, which convicted them under section 325/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner for Northern Areas, Gilgit, constitutes a judgment passed by a High Court so as to attract the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 185 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the appellate jurisdiction under Article 185 pertains exclusively to judgments of a High Court of a Province of Pakistan as envisaged under Article 175 of the Constitution. Since the Court of the Judicial Commissioner is not a High Court for a Province, the appeal is not maintainable. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under Article 185 does not extend to decisions rendered by courts in the Northern Areas that do not qualify as a High Court of a Province.
Questions settled- Whether the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for Northern Areas is a High Court within the meaning of Article 175 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 185 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 extend to judgments passed by the Judicial Commissioner for Northern Areas?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against a judgment delivered by a court in the Northern Areas that is not a Provincial High Court?
- SHAKEEL AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1942 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-18Read full judgment →
- SHAKAR KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1105 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-25Read full judgment →
- Shaikh MUHAMMAD TAQI vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN GHAURI1983 CLC 1085 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against a judgment and decree for specific performance of a sale agreement of immovable property and possession. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by limitation, whether the contract stood frustrated due to the devaluation of currency and abnormal rise in property prices following the separation of East Pakistan, and whether the court should exercise its discretion to refuse specific performance on the grounds of hardship or laches. The court held that the suit was filed within the limitation period calculated from the expiry of the stipulated nine months, that subsequent economic changes and price increases did not frustrate the contract or constitute a valid ground to refuse specific performance, and that the appellant was solely responsible for the breach and did not come to court with clean hands. The key principles laid down are that inadequacy of consideration and subsequent rise in property values do not constitute hardship under section 22 of the Specific Relief Act so as to bar specific performance unless evaluated at the date of the transaction, and a party cannot take advantage of its own wrong or delay to plead frustration or hardship.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property is barred by limitation if filed within three years from the expiration of the total combined time stipulated for performance in the contract?
- Does a subsequent abnormal rise in property values and currency devaluation resulting from the separation of East Pakistan amount to frustration of contract under Pakistani law?
- Can a vendor successfully resist specific performance on the ground of hardship caused by increased property prices when the delay and breach were attributable to the vendor's own default?
- Whether an unsuccessful litigant can be permitted to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to fill up omissions and patch up weak parts of their case?
- Shaikh MUHAMMAD SAEED vs Mst. SALEHA KHATOON1983 CLC 2039 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-06Read full judgment →
- SHAHZADA PERVAIZ KHAN vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 688 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-04-06Read full judgment →
- SHAHZADA KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1402 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-04-04Read full judgment →
- SHAHZAD SULTAN Alias BHOLA vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 86 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-20Read full judgment →
- SHAHOON AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1582 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- SHAHNAWAZ THALLO vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD SALEEM1983 CLC 2379 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- SHAHMIR vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 52 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-02Read full judgment →
- SHAHMAND vs THE STATE1983 PLD Lahore 534 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-21Read full judgment →
- SHAHID RASOOL vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, MULTAN REGION, MULTAN1983 PLC (C. S.) 1109 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
- SHAHID NAEEM vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 751 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- SHAHID HUSSAIN vs The STATE1983 SCMR 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically whether the testimony of an allegedly interested witness could be relied upon to sustain a conviction after the co-accused was acquitted due to the benefit of the doubt. The Supreme Court re-evaluated the evidence and affirmed the appellant's guilt, finding no infirmity in the testimony of the complainant, who had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant in a daylight occurrence. However, regarding the sentence, the Court observed that the incident lacked pre-planning and arose from a sudden flare-up. While the appellant did not satisfy all conditions for the exception of sudden provocation, the Court held that the circumstances warranted a reduction in the penalty. The principle laid down is that where a murder occurs in a sudden, unplanned confrontation, even if the strict requirements of the exception for sudden provocation are not fully met, the court may exercise discretion to impose the lesser sentence of life imprisonment rather than the death penalty.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of an interested witness if the co-accused has been acquitted?
- Does the absence of pre-planning in a murder case justify the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Is the benefit of the doubt extended to a co-accused sufficient to invalidate the entire prosecution case against the main accused?
- SHAHID HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HEALTH1983 PLC (C. S.) 113 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-10-11Read full judgment →
- SHAHID AHMAD KHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY, NORTHERN1983 PLC (C. S.) 527 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
- SHAHDEV vs LEHRI KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 46 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from a suit for declaration and consequential relief filed by the petitioner, where the trial court initially granted a temporary injunction. Upon appeal by the respondents, the District Judge vacated the injunction and dismissed the entire suit on the grounds of res judicata. The core legal question before the High Court was whether an appellate court, hearing an appeal strictly against an interlocutory order granting a temporary injunction, possesses the jurisdiction to dismiss the main suit itself. The High Court held that the District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction. The ratio of the decision is that an appellate court exercising powers in an appeal against an interlocutory order cannot determine the ultimate fate of the main suit, which remains pending before the trial court. The court clarified that the appellate court's authority is limited to upholding, vacating, or modifying the specific order under appeal. Consequently, the High Court set aside the dismissal order and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court hearing an appeal against a temporary injunction dismiss the main suit?
- Does an appellate court have the authority to decide the merits of a suit when only an interlocutory order is under challenge?
- What is the scope of an appellate court's power under Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in an appeal against a temporary injunction?
- SHAHBAZDINO vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1790 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
- SHAHBAZ vs ADDITIONAL DISTRI CT JUDGE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2392 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-19Read full judgment →
- SHAHBAZ KHAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 604 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-30Read full judgment →
- SHAHBAZ KHAN AND OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2313 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-20Read full judgment →
- SHAHAMAND AND OTHERS vs NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2159 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-11Read full judgment →
- SHAHADAT ALI vs COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 639 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-13Read full judgment →
- SHAHABUDDIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1482 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-08Read full judgment →
- SHAHAB DIN vs Mst. KHUDIJA BEGUM AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 591 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE And 5 Other1983 SCMR 1173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by leave of the Court against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 27th April 1977, which had directed the restoration of possession of a piece of land to the respondents under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question involved was whether a Magistrate or the High Court in proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 retains jurisdiction to order restoration of possession when a civil court is already seized of the matter and has passed interim orders regulating possession. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the High Court. The Court held that where a civil court is actively seized of a property dispute and has passed orders regulating possession, proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are ousted, and criminal authorities lack jurisdiction to interfere with or restore possession contrary to the civil court's determinations. The key principle laid down is that the domain of civil courts regarding possession must prevail, and criminal forums cannot adjudicate upon or alter possession rights already regulated by competent civil judicial orders.
Questions settled- Does a Magistrate retain jurisdiction under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a civil court is already seized of the subject-matter and has issued orders regulating possession?
- Can the High Court in revision under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 disregard subsequent civil court orders regulating possession in favor of an earlier interlocutory order?
- Whether proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are liable to be quashed when civil litigation regarding the same property is pending and active?
- SHAH MUHAMMAD vs ALAM DIN AND OTHERS1983 P Cr. LJ 2139 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-25Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1474 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-09Read full judgment →
- SHAH MADAR AND 2 Others vs S. H. O., POLICE STATION, KAMOKE AND 21983 P Cr. L J 2481 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-18Read full judgment →
- SHAH JAWAID vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION1983 PLC 55 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
- SHAH ALI NAQVI vs THE STATE1983 PLD Peshawar 211 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-13Read full judgment →
- SHAH ALI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1983 P Cr. LJ 2016 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
- SHAH AHMED NOORANI vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1983 PCr. L J 1799 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
- SHAFT MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 21983 CLC 1613 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
- SHAFIULLA H vs MESSRS RIAZ FABRICS1983 PLC 60 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- SHAFIQUE vs HE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1296 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
- SHAFIQUE MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs Syed MUSTAFA ALI AND OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 911 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- SHAFIQUE AHMAD BUTT vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1352 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a batch of Intra-Court Appeals involving a common preliminary objection regarding their competence under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of the proviso to section 3(2) of the Ordinance, which bars an Intra-Court Appeal against an order passed under Article 199 of the Constitution if the underlying application arises out of any proceedings in which the applicable law provided for at least one appeal, revision, or review against the original order. The court examined whether the term 'proceedings' encompasses all historical steps related to a subject-matter or requires a close nexus with a specific determinative order, and whether quashed orders remain relevant for the bar. While expressing reservations regarding the broad interpretation adopted in prior precedents like Inayat Bibi's case—holding that separate historical phases or prior allotments constitute the same proceedings—the court ultimately followed the established precedent due to pending matters before the Supreme Court. The court held that where the applicable law provided for appeal, revision, or review remedies which were either available or availed of, the Intra-Court Appeals were incompetent and thus dismissed them.
Questions settled- Does an Intra-Court Appeal lie under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, if the law applicable to the original proceedings provided for an appeal, revision, or review?
- What constitutes 'any proceedings' and an 'original order' within the meaning of the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- Does the quashing of an order by the High Court without lawful authority obliterate the order for the purpose of determining the bar to an Intra-Court Appeal?
- Are administrative appeals or departmental revisions considered valid remedies capable of barring an Intra-Court Appeal under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- SHAFIQ-UR-RAHMAN vs ABDUL GHANI1983 CLC 2020 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a second appeal arising from concurrent proceedings under rent laws, wherein the landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment, personal requirement, and nuisance. The Rent Controller allowed the application solely on the ground of default. Upon appeal and cross-objections, the first appellate court maintained the finding of default and additionally reversed the Rent Controller's finding on personal requirement, granting ejectment on both grounds. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of cross-objections, the appreciation of evidence regarding rent default, and the justification for reversing findings on personal requirement. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding default were based on proper evidence and could not be termed perverse, and that the first appellate court erred in reversing the finding on personal requirement without sufficient supporting evidence concerning the dimensions of the existing premises. The court laid down that concurrent findings on default supported by rent books and counter-foils are unamenable to interference in second appeal, and that a claim for personal requirement for business expansion requires sufficient foundational evidence regarding the inadequacy of existing premises. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the ejectment order solely on the ground of default.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact on the question of default in rent payment can be interfered with in second appeal?
- Are cross-objections maintainable in a rent appeal where the primary order is already in favour of the respondent?
- Is an appellate court justified in reversing a finding on personal requirement in the absence of basic evidence regarding the sufficiency of the landlord's existing premises?
- SHAFFI MUHAMMAD AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 550 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- SHAFAAT AHMAD QURESHI AND Others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND Other1983 SCMR 482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Service Tribunal's decision regarding the service conditions and seniority of a respondent, formerly a Divisional Engineer in the defunct Thal Development Authority. The respondent, having been absorbed into the Irrigation and Power Department, had explicitly requested appointment as an officiating Executive Engineer on specific terms, which the government implemented. Subsequently, the respondent challenged his seniority and terms of absorption, seeking retrospective benefits and a different date of absorption. The Service Tribunal accepted his appeal, disregarding his earlier written request on the premise that it was not made of his own volition, and ordered his absorption from an earlier date. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, primarily to consider whether the respondent, having induced the government to act upon his specific written request, possessed a locus poenitentiae to retract it without formal withdrawal. Furthermore, the Court seeks to determine whether the Service Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively ordering the government to make a specific appointment, a matter falling within the executive domain of the state.
Questions settled- Does a government servant have a locus poenitentiae to retract a written request for appointment after the government has acted upon that request?
- Can a Service Tribunal order the government to appoint a civil servant to a specific post, or does such authority lie exclusively with the executive?
- Is a civil servant bound by the terms of their own written request regarding their appointment and seniority once the government has implemented those terms?
- SHABIR HUSSAIN SHAH vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN (THROUGH 3 LEGAL1983 CLC 1779 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-29Read full judgment →
- SHABIH-UR-RAZA vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1200 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- SHABBIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2578 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-17Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR Alias MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2320 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR AHMAD WATTOO vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2014 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 110 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
- Sh. ZUBAIR AHMED vs ALI AHMED1983 CLC 3254 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- Sh. NAZIR AHMAD vs DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SHRIWAL1983 PLC (C.S.) 116 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-10-04Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUMTAZ ALI AND 4 Other vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAW DEPTT. AND OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 416 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD YASIN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR,1983 PLC (C. S.) 611 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION1983 CLC 2311 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AKHTAR vs SQN/LDR (Rua) Sheikh GHULAM SADIQ1983 CLC 333 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs Mst. AMINA DEGUM AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 29 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-17Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD MATIN vs MRS. KHORSHED DOSU MARKER AND 8 OTHERS1983 CLC 1630 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-10Read full judgment →
- Sh. MEHMOOD AHSAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALNAGAR AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 737 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-17Read full judgment →
- SH. MANZOORUL HAQ vs BEGUM TASLEEM RIAZ HAMDANI AND Other1983 SCMR 1022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court order dismissing a civil revision petition in limine. The petitioner sought specific performance of a contract of sale, having previously filed and withdrawn a suit, followed by a second suit where the plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. After subsequent litigation, the petitioner filed a fresh suit, which was again rejected. The core legal question was whether a plaint can be rejected on the ground of an earlier suit's failure when the new suit involves different defendants and claims. The Supreme Court held that the trial court correctly rejected the plaint because it failed to disclose a triable cause of action against the newly added defendants, who were innocent vendees for consideration. The Court affirmed that allegations of fraud and misrepresentation against original vendors, while potentially actionable in a suit for damages, could not serve as a basis for specific performance against subsequent innocent purchasers. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, as the trial court's finding regarding the lack of a triable cause of action remained irrefutable.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be rejected for failure to disclose a triable cause of action against newly added defendants who are innocent vendees?
- Does the rejection of a previous suit under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 preclude a subsequent suit if the cause of action against new defendants is distinct?
- Can allegations of fraud and misrepresentation against original vendors be used to sustain a claim for specific performance against subsequent innocent purchasers?
- Sh. MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs MANAGER, SKYROOM RESTAURANT, KARACHI1983 PLC 1025 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- Sh. KHUDA BAKHSH vs ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2495 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-27Read full judgment →
- Sh. FAZAL-UR-REHMAN vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1983 PLC 1107 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- Sh. FARZAND ALI vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND Other1983 SCMR 833 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition against a government order reducing the area of a leased land grant upon renewal. The core legal question was whether the government acted lawfully in reducing the leased area from 120 acres to approximately 58 acres when renewing the petitioner's lease, and whether the petitioner had a vested right to renewal on the original terms. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements for renewal stipulated in the grant's conditions. Furthermore, the Court held that because the petitioner had voluntarily opted for and accepted the reduced area without protest after the lease had expired, he was estopped from challenging the government's decision in constitutional jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that a party who acquiesces to a modified administrative decision and acts upon it cannot subsequently challenge the outcome in writ jurisdiction, particularly when the underlying contractual conditions for renewal were not strictly satisfied.
Questions settled- Can a lessee challenge the reduction of a leased area in writ jurisdiction after having voluntarily accepted the reduced terms?
- Does a failure to provide the mandatory notice for lease renewal under the grant conditions preclude a claim for renewal on original terms?
- Is a petitioner entitled to constitutional relief when they have acquiesced to an administrative decision without protest?
- Sh. ATAUL HAQ vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1035 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-01Read full judgment →
- Sh. ASHFAQ AHMAD vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1983 PLC 535 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-12Read full judgment →
- Sh. ABDUR RAHIM ALLAH DITTA (REGD.) RE-ROLLING MILLS vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 2941 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
- Sh. ABDUL HAMID vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION1983 PLC (C. S.) 530 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
- SERAT-UN-NABI vs Kh. NASIR-UR-REHMAN AND 2 OTHERS_1983 P L .C (C. S.) 296 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT, UNITED BANK LTD. vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1983 PLC 725 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-25Read full judgment →
- SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER (ADMN.), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, HASSANHOSPITALKARACHI CANTT. vs MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ1983 PLC 918 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-01Read full judgment →
- SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF N. W. F. P. AND Others vs ABDUL RAHMAN1983 SCMR 504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the execution of a consent decree against the Government of N.W.F.P. The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their appeal by the District Judge, who had refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal against an order passed by the Civil Judge. The core legal questions were whether the Government is entitled to preferential treatment regarding the law of limitation and whether the procedural requirements of Section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extend the limitation period for filing an appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Government is not exempt from the law of limitation and must be treated like any ordinary litigant. The Court affirmed that the Government's internal bureaucratic processes do not constitute sufficient grounds for condoning delay. Furthermore, the Court held that the provisions of Section 82, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which regulate the execution of decrees against the Government, do not extend or alter the statutory period of limitation for filing an appeal against an order.
Questions settled- Is the Government entitled to preferential treatment or special consideration regarding the law of limitation compared to an ordinary litigant?
- Does the requirement under Section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to specify a time for satisfaction of a decree against the Government extend the limitation period for filing an appeal?
- Can internal bureaucratic delays in consulting government functionaries constitute sufficient ground for the condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
- SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND Others vs BASHIR AHMAD1983 SCMR 1035 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two petitions seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether, in light of the proviso to paragraph 5 of Martial Law Order No. 23 dated 22-10-1977, the Tribunal was legally justified in granting back-dated seniority to respondents who had been retired under Martial Law Regulation No. 114 on 18-3-1972 but were subsequently reinstated and promoted to Extra Assistant Commissioners. The respondents had been granted seniority over their compeers who were promoted during the period the respondents were out of service. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to resolve this conflict, declining to stay the Tribunal's order but directing that the cases be heard together with related appeals. The key principle under consideration is the determination of retrospective seniority for reinstated civil servants under Martial Law Order No. 23.
Questions settled- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal is justified in conferring back-dated seniority to reinstated civil servants over their compeers who were promoted during the period of the former's retirement under Martial Law Regulation No. 114?
- What is the legal effect of the proviso to paragraph 5 of Martial Law Order No. 23 of 1977 on the seniority of reinstated officers?
- SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF N. W. F. P. AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND Another vs ABDUL REHMAN, FOREST CONTRACTOR AND Other1983 SCMR 461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order that dismissed a revision petition on the grounds of limitation. The dispute arose from a consent decree obtained by a forest contractor against the N.W.F.P. government. Following the decree, the government enacted Ordinance No. VII of 1980 and Regulation No. 1 of 1980, which terminated such contracts notwithstanding any court orders. The government sought to challenge the execution of the decree, but lower courts dismissed the challenge due to time-bar. The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Court held that when a matter involves an important legal question regarding the interpretation of new legislation that potentially impacts the executability of a decree, it is in the interest of justice to condone delay to decide the issue on merits. This approach prevents potential legal anomalies and ensures consistency, even where the government’s explanation for the delay is not entirely convincing, as the substantive legal question requires authoritative examination by the Court.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court condone delay in filing an appeal to resolve an important legal question regarding the interpretation of new legislation?
- Does the government require greater latitude in respect of limitation than an ordinary litigant?
- Is it appropriate to condone delay in filing an appeal to prevent potential legal anomalies in the law?
- SCHINDLER FATEH ALLY MARIN LTD. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC 179 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-21Read full judgment →
- SATAWAT JAHAN AND 7 OTHERS vs MAJOR (RETG.) Mufti NAZAR MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 1381 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- SARWAR ABBAS vs Mst. HAJRA BAI AND 4 Others1983 CLC 337 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from the judgment of the Second Additional District Judge, Karachi, confirming an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of default in payment of rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The appellant-tenant contended that following the death of the original landlady, the respondents failed to provide an heirship certificate establishing their legal title despite a demand, thereby exempting the tenant from tendering rent following a notice under Section 13-A. The High Court held that Section 13-A merely requires intimation to the tenant regarding the death of the owner and the identity of the legal heirs inheriting the property, and does not obligate the heirs to furnish an heirship certificate or documentary proof of inheritance. The Court noted that the tenant had options to remit rent or deposit it before the Rent Controller if genuine doubt existed. Failing to do so rendered the appellant a wilful defaulter from the date notice was received. The appeal was dismissed, confirming concurrent findings.
Questions settled- Does Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 require legal heirs to furnish an heirship certificate or documentary proof of inheritance to a tenant upon issuing notice?
- Is a tenant entitled to withhold rent on the ground that the legal heirs failed to produce an heirship certificate following a Section 13-A notice?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding default in payment of rent and the quantum of rent be interfered with in a second appeal?
- SARFRAZ AHMED AND 5 OTHERS vs ANJUMANEISLAMIA BALUCHISTAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Quetta 92 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of an order refusing a temporary injunction in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and possession concerning a commercial shop. The core legal question is whether the sealing of a disputed shop falls within the scope of temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the petitioners satisfied the prerequisites for equitable relief. The Balochistan High Court held that sealing the shop did not maintain the status quo but created a new situation, and that the loss claimed by the petitioners was easily measurable in monetary terms and thus not irreparable. The court laid down the principle that temporary injunctions are equitable reliefs requiring the co-existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, and that a plaintiff who has violated principles of equity by subletting premises without consent cannot invoke discretionary injunctive relief.
Questions settled- Does an order to seal a disputed property during the pendency of a suit constitute a proper exercise of power under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can financial loss that is easily measurable in terms of money be categorized as irreparable loss for the purpose of granting a temporary injunction?
- Does the High Court interfere in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the appellate court's discretion on an injunction matter is neither arbitrary nor fanciful?
- Must all three conditions—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—co-exist before a temporary injunction can be granted?
- SARDARA AND OTHERS vs NAZIR AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2949 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-16Read full judgment →
- Sardar SAKHAWATUDDIN AND 5 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 448 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
- Sardar SAKHAWAT UD DIN AND Others. vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND Other1983 SCMR 1269(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the passing of a decree in the absence of supporting evidence upon the failure of the defendants to file additional written statements. The core legal question for consideration is whether a court is competent to pass a decree under the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without recording evidence in support of the plaintiff's case. Granting leave to appeal, the Court held that the question requires further consideration and ordered the appeal to be made ready on the present record for an early hearing, requiring security. The key principle relates to the procedural prerequisites for rendering a judgment and decree upon a party's default in filing pleadings.
Questions settled- Can a decree be passed under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 despite the absence of any evidence in support of the plaintiff's case?
- Does the failure of defendants to file additional written statements automatically warrant the passing of a decree without further proof?
- Sardar NOOR HUSSAIN vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER Em1983 PLD Supreme Court 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses whether the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Article 177 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to a Letters Patent Appeal arising from writ jurisdiction regarding the substitution of a deceased party and the resulting abatement. The core legal question was whether writ proceedings and Letters Patent Appeals emanating therefrom are governed by the procedural rules and limitation periods prescribed for civil suits and appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or by residuary limitation provisions. The Supreme Court held that the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Limitation Act 1908 fully apply to constitutional petitions, writ proceedings, and Letters Patent Appeals arising therefrom, meaning that an application for impleading legal representatives must be filed within the prescribed period of ninety days, failing which the appeal abates. The key principle laid down is that procedural laws and penal consequences, such as abatement for failure to substitute legal heirs in time, apply uniformly to civil proceedings, constitutional petitions, and intra-court Letters Patent Appeals.
Questions settled- Do the provisions of Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to a Letters Patent Appeal arising from writ jurisdiction?
- Does Article 177 of the Limitation Act 1908 govern applications for impleading legal representatives of a deceased party in a Letters Patent Appeal?
- Does the omission of abatement provisions by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 have retrospective effect on an appeal that had already abated prior to its enactment?
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN1983 PLD Lahore 416 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-15Read full judgment →